- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:00:59 -0600
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hello Everyone, I have been asked to provide further details and history of the proposals at: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices Proposal number 1 is Ian's. I wrote proposals number 2 through 6. Proposal number 2 is and always has been the change proposal which implements WAI CG's recommendation and which is the accessibility task force recommendation: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20090126 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0033.html I drafted proposals number 3 and 4 at the Chairs' request because the accessibility task force did not have rationale for aria-labelledby or role="presentation" in their proposal (but now it does, thanks to Steve). It was last June that the HTML WG Chairs asked that rationale be provided for the aria-labelledby and role="presentation" or to exclude them from the accessibility task force change proposal. So in June I asked the task force for help in providing rationale for aria-labelledby and role="presentation": http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jun/0213.html No one responded to my call for help. So in July I created proposals 3 an 4 without those options and informed the task force. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0022.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0025.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100706 http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100707 Since then people have contacted me off list saying that no accessibility task force response to my TF queries is indicative of weak rationale for aria-labelledby and role="presentation". They would like proposals 3 and 4 as offerings for the HTMLWG survey. Proposal 5 was created to try to address Jonas and T.V Raman's concerns. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010May/0186.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100510 Proposal 6 was created to try to address Vlad Alexander concerns. He has no faith W3C HTML WG or WHATWG, so I submitted this proposal on his behalf. http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/correct-img-element-definition/ http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElement20100504 I can live with any of the Change Proposals that I drafted. They all have the commonality of disallowing <img> to be valid with the generator mechanism, email exception, and title attribute as well as requiring the structural Integrity of the <img> element. Best Regards, Laura Related references: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0039.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0041.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jul/0113.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0080.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Mar/0007.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0310.html On 11/7/10, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > I read the tpac minutes. There seems to have been some confusion over > the alt change proposals regarding missing alt and conformance > checkers. > > To try to help delineate those change proposals and the options they > contain, I put together a new wiki page: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 01:01:46 UTC